Arkansas House Votes to Allow Teaching of Creationism in Science Classes

[HARK!]

An untested, but still testable in principle (ie: practice or theory) hypothesis, is a type of testable belief (if you like). This is demonstrably different from a pure belief (or speculation, fantasy, sc-fi, delusion, mirage, superstition, etc, etc) .. and that's what makes it a useful concept.

Technologies, for instance, are based around the concept of testable beliefs (or untested, yet testable hypotheses). I gave examples of those in the case of abiogenesis hypotheses .. there are many, many more examples of untested, yet testable hypothesis, which become useful (along their own timelines).

Abiogenises has been tested repeatedly; and it comes up short.

How do you differentiate a hypothesis which continues to fail all tests, from an untestable belief?

In other words, if every test of the veracity of this belief fails; then how can one say that the belief is testable?

Do you think that there might be something more practical that could be done with the very costly time, allocated to our children's preparation for success in life, than studying failed tests?

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

Apparently you don't understand what I wrote. The subject of argument was not about knowing why the sky is blue, nor even about empirical evidence. The subject is that the premise of a logical argument is an axiom.

If we can't agree that water is wet; then no amount of reason will explain to you that it will dampen hydrophilic objects which come in contact with it.

Ok, apology, I did not go far enough back, however premises and axioms are not the same things. That said, I leave you to self sim as I agree with him here.

 

[HARK!]

Ok, apology, I did not go far enough back, however premises and axioms are not the same things. That said, I leave you to self sim as I agree with him here.

I didn't say that premises and axioms are the same thing. I said that the premise of a logical argument is an axiom.

 

[SelfSim]

Abiogenises has been tested repeatedly; and it comes up short.

Come up short of what? An expectation based on a belief?.. Or an expectation of knowing where/what to place one's next bet, in order to gain consistently demonstrable knowledge?
I know science is the worst possible way of doing that .. apart from all the other possible ways of doing that (aka: beliefs).

How do you differentiate a hypothesis which continues to fail all tests, from an untestable belief?

'Failing tests' (using your term there) still produces objective results .. (and thence possible scientific meaning), for a properly conceived hypothesis/empirical tests.
Those results can point to other more worthwhile avenues of investigation.

In other words, if every test of the veracity of this belief fails; then how can one say that the belief is testable?

Where some hypothesis is demonstrably objectively testable .. even in principle, it is still capable of being useful. It doesn't matter how long it takes .. Patience!

Do you think that there might be something more practical that could be done with the very costly time, allocated to our children's preparation for success in life, than studying failed tests?

Yes .. as I pointed out in my previous post .. Where else does one learn how to think in the way that produced that computer sitting in front of you .. or in the way that saved a loved one's life?

 

[HARK!]

'Failing tests' (using your term there) still produces objective results .. (and thence possible scientific meaning), for a properly conceived hypothesis/empirical tests.
Those results can point to other more worthwhile avenues of investigation.

I agree. We're long overdue to wipe our hands of abiogenesis, and come up with another hypothesis to test.

 

[HARK!]

Yes .. as I pointed out in my previous post .. Where else does one learn how to think in the way that produced that computer sitting in front of you .. or in the way that saved a loved one's life?

Now you're onto something! Studying boolean algebra, and electron theory, have far more practical applications than studying failed tests.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It seems the Gen X'ers in the Arkansas legislature are leaning into their 80's nostalgia a bit too hard.



Who has the story about the earth being created on the back of a turtle?

I like turtles.

Terry Pratchett and his discworld series. Don't forget about the elephants!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Abiogenises has been tested repeatedly; and it comes up short.

How do you differentiate a hypothesis which continues to fail all tests, from an untestable belief?

In other words, if every test of the veracity of this belief fails; then how can one say that the belief is testable?

Do you think that there might be something more practical that could be done with the very costly time, allocated to our children's preparation for success in life, than studying failed tests?

How has abiogenesis been tested so that it "comes up short"?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I agree. We're long overdue to wipe our hands of abiogenesis, and come up with another hypothesis to test.

I am aware of the tests that abiogenesis has passed. I am unaware of any that it has failed.

 

[HARK!]

I am aware of the tests that abiogenesis has passed. I am unaware of any that it has failed.

Really? I'm surprised that the news of the spontaneous creation of life from inorganic matter, hasn't made the headlines.

Tell me of this new man made creature!

 

[AV1611VET]

Tell me of this new man made creature!

I have found both the MISSING LINK and ABIOGENESIS!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Really? I'm surprised that the news of the spontaneous creation of life from inorganic matter, hasn't made the headlines.

Tell me of this new man made creature!

That is not predicted by any hypothesis. I am sorry but you do not understand what you are arguing against.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Origin myths are also theories. (and that's the wording used in the title of HB1701)

Oh goody! What reasonable test could refute an origin myth based upon its own merits?

 

[HARK!]

That is not predicted by any hypothesis. I am sorry but you do not understand what you are arguing against.

Perhaps you don't understand what you are arguing against.

When I was in school abiogenesis was taught as science. It was purported in these science classes that life emerged from a primordial stew, by chance.

If this were true, it would seem that this could be easily demonstrated in an ideal controlled laboratory environment.

It hasn't. No test of this assertion has even come close to demonstrating this as fact.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Perhaps you don't understand what you are arguing against.

When I was in school abiogenesis was taught as science. It was purported in these science classes that life emerged from a primordial stew, by chance.

If this were true, it would seem that this could be easily demonstrated in an ideal controlled laboratory environment.

It hasn't. No test of this assertion has even come close to demonstrating this as fact.

Abiogenesis is science. And no, it was never "by chance". That is incorrect. If you were taught that you either had a poor teacher or you had a poor understanding. I am betting that it was the latter. You still do not understand it today. Abiogenesis does not predict that life would continually appear.

When are you going to find an actual test that abiogenesis failed? Peer reviewed papers are a must. You cannot base a refutation on your own personal poor understanding of a process.

 

[sjastro]

Nonsense. Buying Into the most popular theory isn't critical thinking.

Another example of a lack of critical thinking.
The issue isn't about how popular a theory is but whether creationism stands on its own two feet as a mainstream scientific theory.
To do so it must be supported by evidence; faith is not evidence unless you can demonstrate otherwise.

 

[HARK!]

Abiogenesis is science. And no, it was never "by chance". That is incorrect. If you were taught that you either had a poor teacher or you had a poor understanding.

Multiple teachers, multiple classes, multiple schools.

I suspect however that they were all being told what to teach by the same source.

I am betting that it was the latter.

With my credentials , you'll just have to trust me that you lost that bet.

You still do not understand it today.

I understand what I was told. I almost fell for it, until I started speaking with scientists in that field.

Abiogenesis does not predict that life would continually appear.

Ahem. I made no such claim. However, is not science reproducible? Let's talk more about those ideal lab conditions.

If science had any understanding of how life was created; it should be a very simple matter to just whip some up in a lab.

Let's talk about what you understand.

When are you going to find an actual test that abiogenesis failed? Peer reviewed papers are a must. You cannot base a refutation on your own personal poor understanding of a process.

Proving a negative?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Multiple teachers, multiple classes, multiple schools.

I suspect however that they were all being told what to teach by the same source.

Possibly, but you forgot the one thing was constantly the constant. Same student. You may have simply made the same error repeatedly.

With my credentials , you'll just have to trust me that you lost that bet.

I doubt that. What are your claimed credentials? You still do not seem to understand your error here and I am rather sure that you have been corrected in the past.

I understand what I was told. I almost fell for it, until I started speaking with scientists in that field.

Really? I doubt it. Creationists are almost never "scientists in the field". They may be in related areas but they are almost never in the field that they disagree with.

Ahem. I made no such claim. However, is not science reproducible? Let's talk more about those ideal lab conditions.


If science had any understanding of how life was created; it should be a very simple matter to just whip some up in a lab.

That is poorly phrased. Observations are repeatable. Events may not be. If the environment is changed one may not repeat events.

No one has made a claim that how life formed is fully understood. Why use such a poor argument?

Let's talk about what you understand.

We could . I am willing to admit when I do not fully understand something. I don't see you doing the same.

Proving a negative?

No, you made a claim. You need to support it. That is not "proving a negative".

 

[SelfSim]

Perhaps you don't understand what you are arguing against.

When I was in school abiogenesis was taught as science. It was purported in these science classes that life emerged from a primordial stew, by chance.

I would say the person who taught you may have had little understanding of the purpose of introducing Abiogenesis(?)
Do you recall ever having heard (or read) that it is a testable hypothesis .. or is all that you heard was: 'that life emerged from a primordial stew, by chance' .. and that you then carried that misunderstood concept forwards into your adult life, until now?

(By way of comparison, I was never taught anything about abiogenesis at (my secular) schools, BTW).

If this were true, it would seem that this could be easily demonstrated in an ideal controlled laboratory environment.

It hasn't. No test of this assertion has even come close to demonstrating this as fact.

You are mistaken when you rule out the possibility of .. or even the likelihood of life having emerged from collective autocatalytic sets of interacting small proteins, or even more likely: interacting peptide subsets which formed into lipid based vesicles?
I'll bet the objective results of the lab tests demonstrating that process even in present day life, wasn't part of your school lesson on Abiogenesis, eh(?)

 

[HARK!]

Observations are repeatable.

Reproducibility is a major principle of the scientific method. It means that a result obtained by an experiment or observational study should be achieved again with a high degree of agreement when the study is replicated with the same methodology by different researchers. Only after one or several such successful replications should a result be recognized as scientific knowledge.

The fact of the matter, is that based on the principles of science, science has no knowledge of what created life.

LOL!